Much of what is loved and loathed about player killing comes down to "good form" - let me explain.

Player killing is a CHAOTIC trait - this is further celebrated in GANGS whose members deliberately align themselves against rival GANGS.

When deciding to go on a little player hunt, make sure that you attack them when they have an opportunity to defend themselves - that is, specifically (according to policy) NOT when they are already engaged in a fight, or when they are recovering from one. It is POOR FORM to kick a player when they are down (damage-wise). It is POOR FORM to join the monster in attacking another player (however funny that might sound). It is POOR FORM to heal a monster that is battering another player severely also.

It is amusing that chaotic players complain about being PK'd, particularly when they, themselves, PK at other times. If you can't stand the heat, stop ... standing on the ... hot ... thing.

"It is NOT OK to use BLIND or FEAR on other PLAYERS - these tools are
designed for use in combat with NPCs. Players BULLYING other players by
abusively casting these spells on them will be punished. You have been
warned."

fair enough that casting them repeatedly on players and without provocation is seen as bullying and abusive, but what if you were being continuously harassed by players? as in if you were the one being bullied and harassed all the time and you use fear or blind on your attacker to deter them, does that still violate the policy by using them 'abusively' to 'bully'?

fear on another player becomes an issue if you cause them to retreat to their death, otherwise I have little problem using it as a "bugger off and stop bothering me you pest" thing. Blind on a noob (ie. someone who has no chance of un-doing it) is a bit far I think.

DO NOT PKILL while your intended victim is engaged in battle with a
monster or in bad health recovering from a savage battle - this is
considered BAD FORM and is not allowed. If you are PKILLING then do it
openly and fairly with honor, where your intended victim has a chance to
defend themselves.

Ok i'm not sure if this is in the right forum, but here goes.

Let me first say i do not have problem with the rule of not attacking players in combat. I wholeheartedly support this. I disagree with the second phrase attached here "in bad health recovering from a savage battle". I think that his should be taken out of the policy for the following reasons:

1. It is against the spirit of chaotic play. It states clearly several times in various areas that if you pick chaotic play then you accept that players can attack and steal from you. Player killing has been continually further and further restricted and fewer penalties imposed on the victims. (In times gone by a player being killed would result in a loss of all equiped armor and weapon, as well as possibly some gold?) If players do not wish to deal with it, (ie they have a little whine) then they should be simply told to play lawful characters.

Player killing is not, imho, equivillant to two knights dueling with sabres on a field. If anything it is more akin to a knifing in an alleyway. This is especially true of assassins and thief attacks. Both these classes are DESIGNED to excel at pkilling and can deal 100+ damage in a single burst leaving their opponents no chance to strike back. There is nothing honourable about them. If they have the skill to stalk an opponent, or the patience to wait for them and then strike them at a moment of weakness then they should be allowed to, and it is very much in character with their characters.

Surely a very good playerkiller should not be penalised because he is smart enough and patient enough to stalk his prey and pick an ideal time to strike? (provided he does not cause a npc caused death.) If players want to duel then they have the cages for it. Furthermore, in almost any player fight, the characters are not equally powerful, and the common (and indeed understandable response) is not to fight an honourable duel, but cowardly flight to the nearest tick room and a verbal assult and their would be attacker. These are hardly the actions of someone trying to honourably defend themselves.

2. It is (at time of writing) unclear as to what poor health or a savage battle actually is. Does Bruce on 1/4 health constitute poor health, despite the fact he has over 50hp? Or is there some limit on what condition a players health must be in before they are attacked? What about mp based classes, surley they would be at a disadvantage if they have used all their mp after a battle? Their are a myriad of possibilities i could list here of various situations and ask whether or not they constitute "poor health" or a "savage battle".

3. Some players, namely hoo, have characters that cannot be examined due to item names similar to theirs. Ie a character named hom cannot be looked at if you have a homesick potion in your inventory. How can we tell if they are in "poor health" or not?

4. Player will spend most of their time either:A ticking, B: attacking something or C: being wounded after attacking something. Both a and b are not times when a player can actively be killed and rightly so. To remove c as well means that players can only get attacked a tiny % of the actual time in game, and reduces what can be very skillful playerkills to camping tick rooms and spamming.

Anyways that is my view on this particular clause and i would be interested in hearing from people about what they think constitutes 'poor health and savage battle'/what they think of my idea/alternatives to this rule.[/quote]